i would rather say mom, bye than think about mumbai

but here it goes.

the powerful states, their compliant media, and apolitical populations are yet again aghast at the actions of violent terrorists. they will once again huddle to psychoanalyze the perpetrators. they will talk about islam, the war on terror, al qaeda, bin laden, and the clash of civilizations. people who forgot to feel horror over the 18 million people who starve or die of preventable diseases each year will once again value human life, and be mortified over the taking of it. those who have blindly supported or ignored the killing done by the u.s military, and of israel, will suddenly condemn violence. those who have ignored the 100 people killed in pakistan by pilotless drones from the u.s army will now be disgusted by the 100 people killed by those unfortunate to not have drones in their murderous arsenal.

i could go on in this way, but i think it is more important to analyze what may have caused the attacks. while i, and perhaps, no one, knows exactly why it happened, here are some ideas that will surely not be touched upon by the western media. for that very reason, they should be considered.

1) the horrific poverty in india. india is a country where a fourth of the population survives on less than 40 cents a day. i just spent 2 bucks on a coffee and paper. that would be a week's wage for over 250 million indians. over 3/4ths of the population survives on less than 1.25 a day, which is a higher percentage than that of sub saharan africa, usually the region thought to be the poorest in the world. it has been said that some of the poor have cut their own limbs off in order to make more money as beggars. young girls, by the thousands, have been forced to sell their bodies to survive, and many of them have gotten aids as a result. contrast this poverty with the luxury hotels that were attacked in mumbai. a one day stay at the taj majal, one of the two hotels attacked, costs $355. contrast this with the average one year indian salary of $590, and remember that a full fourth of the population makes less than 40 cents a day. is it not a form of economic terrorism to spend $355 a day at a hotel in a country where hundreds of millions of people will not make that amount in a year? this question will not be asked. how many indians could have been saved if all those people who spent $355 a day at the taj mahal instead spent that money to help the poor of india? surely more than the number of people killed by the terrorists at the taj mahal. is it not the epitome of arrogance to spend thousands of dollars in a country that is suffering from such extreme poverty? and is it not the epitome of arrogance to ignore this systemic murder, while we are disgusted at the actions of terrorists? so yes, i think it would be instructive to take a closer look at the endemic poverty within india. this could be a central cause of the actions that occurred. surely, we should try to end this poverty be redistributing the wealth that already exists in india, and by pumping aid to those in the country who most need it. in terms of who perpetrated the attacks in mumbai, we should consider the strong possibility that the perpetrators were indians themselves, disgusted by the extreme poverty within their country.

2) another cause could be the ongoing anti-muslim actions of the indian state, controlled by the hindu majority. while the media has focused closely on the horrors of mumbai, little was said in 2002, when 2,000 muslims were killed in the indian state of gujarat. tensions run high in india, where muslims are often targeted by members of the hindu majority. relations between india and pakistan remain tense, and this often causes indian muslims to be victimized by hindus. the westerm media ignores the systemic discrimination faced by the muslims in india, as they trumpet the "success" story of indian democracy, when, in fact, it is not democracy that has triumphed in india, but rather, an unbridled capitalism that has enriched a few million people at the expense of hundreds of millions of the impoverished. the muslim minority, which comprises about 15% of the total population, makes for a convenient scapegoat for the downtrodden hindu masses, who often attack them rather than challenging those who truly oppress them. it is akin to poor whites in the south who would lynch blacks, and then go to work for rich whites who paid them next to nothing. those of us in the west can ignore this discrimination in india, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening, and certainly, the people suffering from it are very aware of it. since it appears likely the recent terrorist actions were carried out by indian muslims, perhaps an understanding of how indian muslims are treated in india would be helpful in gaining an understanding of why the attacks took place. of course, the media in the west will be silent on this, just as they will be on the extreme poverty in india. better to psychoananalyze the perpetrators, to speak of their madness and insanity, and to condemn the use of violence, while driving down the street with a "support our troops" bumpersticker.

3) finally, it maybe instructive to think about who is being kidnapped in these attacks. other than the indigenous rich of india, those from america and england, as well as jews, seem to be targets. now, i wonder why they might resent american and british citizens? if the attackers are islamic militants, as we are being told, might it have something to do with the fact that we are currently blowing up iraq and afghanistan, as well as killing hundreds in pakistan, a country that we aren't even at war with? between iraq and afghanistan, we have likely killed about 1.5 million people, injured millions more, and made still millions more refugees. no one in the major media will psychoanalyze our leaders who started these wars. no one will address their madness and insanity, and speak to how they are likely driven to acts of murder by a religion that condones violence. now, certainly it is wrong to kill civilians just because they happen to be from a country that has committed horrible crimes. i, for example, don't want my life to be taken because of the actions of my government. but then again, i'm not spending $355 a day at a indian hotel while millions starve in that country. furthermore, if we agree that it is wrong to kill civilians because of the actions of their government, where are the masses of americans who condemn the killings in iraq and afghanistan? and what of ww2? most americans glorify the war, but what of the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in japan and germany by u.s and british forces? were they not punished for the crimes of their government? if we believe this to be wrong, then why don't why the masses of americans recognize those who were slaughtered in dresden, hamburg, hiroshima, and nagasaki? it is thought that 600,000 german civilians were killed by u.s air power during ww2. who among us condemns these deaths? if we believe it is wrong to kill civilians because of the actions of their government, than we must be consisted in our condemnation of such behavior.

as for the jews who have been captured or killed, i can not deny that there is likely some anti-semitism at work here. anti-semitism is not new, and for sure, it did not start as a result of the state of israel. however, if we are trying to figure out why jews are being victimized in india, don't we have to look at the actions of israel? as we speak, israel is laying seige to the gaza strip. israel is not allowing shipments of food and medicine into the territory, and is not allowing the people of gaza out of the territory. israel is not even allowing the western media in to document what is going on, despite their normally compliant reorting on all things israel. these israeli attacks against the 1.5 million people of gaza will surely lead to more death and destruction than the terrorist attacks in mumbai, but they have drawn no outrage from the west, and at worst, are excused as reactions by a "beseiged" israeli state. of course, this is not the first crime that the state of israel has committed against the people of the arab world. now, while i can't know exactly what is causing jews to be targeted in mumbai, isn't at least likely that the brutal actions of the state of israel against the muslim world have something to do with their being targeted? again, it is wrong to target a group of people because of the actions of their government, or their religion. if we agree on this, will we not also condemn the brutal israeli actions against the people of gaza? are they not also being targeted because of who they are, and because of the actions of a few extermists? why is it ok for us, or our allies, to brutalize masses of people, in the name of security, or fighting terrorism , or democracy, when it is not ok for our opponents to do the same? when will we condemn state terrorism, better known as war, with the same vigor that we condemn the brutal actions of the desperate? when will we fund progressives like nasser, sukarno, lumumba, arafat, mossadegh, taraki of afghanistan, allende, arbenz, chavez, castro, and others, instead of creating, arming, and aiding their far more brutal opponents, which has surely helped lead to the kind of world where terrorist actions are seen as the only hope of those fighting oppression? when will we condemn systemic poverty with the same outrage that we now condemn the sporatic brutal actions of terrorists, despite the fact that their actions kill far less than the results of global capitalism? when will we reduce our military budget, and stop killing people abroad? if we don't stop this, what right do we have to condemn the murder committed by others?

well, don't look too hard for this analysis in the major media. better to blame it all on al qaeda, and to stress our continued need to prosecute the war on terror.

yes, but better for who?